tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Jan 17 14:10:30 1995

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: easy sentences

According to Jeremy Cowan:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Jan 1995, charghwI' wrote:
> ..
> > > 3. The children are asleep.
> > >    Qong(choH) puqpu'.
> > 
> > The {-choH} would indicate that the children just fell asleep.
> > Otherwise, {QongtaH puqpu'} might serve well enough.
> 
> I know that this has been previously discused (and possibly even concluded) 
> here, but I am still confused.  QongtaH does not seem accurate to me.  
> QonglI' seems like the word that should be used.  (BTW, I believe that 
> charghwI' would agree that Qong puqpu' is not incorrect.)  Looking over 
> TKD p.42 s.4.2.7:Aspect, I am still confused.

Ahhh yessss. This thread again. Okay, from the top.

The reason I'd prefer {QongtaH} here over {QonglI'} is that the
quality you wish to point to is the continuous state of
sleeping. We don't care how long they have been asleep or much
about the precise moment that they are likely to awaken. We may
ponder these things, but when we say, QongtaH puqpu', we are
referring specifically to the state of being asleep.

Qu'wIj vIta'lI'. Here I am also talking about a continuous
state, but it is one with a specific goal in mind. Once that
goal is reached, I will be free of the continuous state. While
it is true that the children's sleeping will end, just like my
working toward the accomplishment of a task, the goal is not
the connotative point of the children's sleeping, while the
task IS the connotative point of my accomplishing my task.

Now, if I want the children to do something {DaH!}, and you
tell me {QongtaH puqpu'}, I might shove you aside as I enter
the room with clear intent to awaken them, as I comment to you,
{QonglI' puqpu'!}

We are both saying that the children are sleeping. I, however,
am adding to this a focus on the end of that continuous state.
The end has not happened yet, but I definitely have it in mind
when I say {QonglI' puqpu'}.

Similarly, if you trip over backwards as you stood at a cliff's
edge, you might yell {jIpumchoH!}. As you fall, looking back up
at me, you might yell, {jIpumtaH!} (or, I guess, more
accurately, {jIpuuuuuuuummmmmtaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaHHHH!}). As you
flip over and face down to the ground, you might reevaluate
your situation and yell, {jIpumlI'!}. The focus changes between
these latter two statements as the focus of the statement
shifts from the continuous state of your falling to the
recognition that your primary concern in making the statement
has to do with the completion of the act you are now in the
continuous state of executing.

{-lI'} and {taH} really are denotating the same thing. Both are
continuous states. {-lI'} makes a direct focus statement on the
end or goal of that continuing act, while {-taH} makes no such
allusion.

It is similar in some ways (but not all) in the difference
between {-pu'} and {-ta'}. Both indicate the perfective, but
{-ta'} adds a sense that the completion was specifically
intentional.

Don't think I'm saying that {-lI'} implies intent. What I mean
is that {-lI'} adds something (a focus on the completion of the
act, which has not happened yet) to the meaning of {-taH}, just
as {-ta'} adds something (definite intent) to the meaning of
{-pu'}.

> The discussion given seems to indicate that -taH is an unintentional 
> continuation and -lI' is an intentional continuation (theory #1).  

This is the misunderstanding I was just referring to. Intent is
the difference between {-pu'} and {-ta'}, but it is not the
difference between {taH} and {-lI'}. While {-lI'} can imply
intent, the thing it more definitely indicates is a focus (not
necessarily intent) on the end of the continuous state. You are
progressing toward that end state. You don't have to intend to
progress. You just have to progress.

> Some 
> of the examples, OTOH, imply that -taH means, "who knows when it's going 
> to stop," and -lI' means, "we know when it's going to stop," (theory 
> #2).  I was particularly intrigued by Okrand's first example for each 
> suffix.

This is another near miss. You don't have to know when it will
stop to know THAT it will stop and to make a statement with a
focus on that stopping point. Note the difference between
{pIn'a'wI' vItoy'taH} and {pIn'a'wI' vItoy'lI'}. The latter
implies that I'm biding my time, awaiting the right opportunity.

> Let's look at nughoStaH and nuchollI'!  nughoS seems to translate as, "it 
> is coming towards us," and nuchol as, "it is coming near us."  So one is 
> on a collision course and one may or may not be, but IS coming very 
> close.  

My own interpretation of this would be that nughoS means that
it is moving along a path which leads to us, while nuchol means
that it is decreasing its distance from us, perhaps to beam
someone aboard, or to get within firing range. nughoStaH would
be somewhat strange, since the object of ghoS tends to be a
destination (or sometimes some other point along the course of
the moving object with which the course is associated). Still,
if you sent your brother to the store to buy some qagh, and
once he completed that mission, he called you to tell you {DaH
jItlheD}, and a few minutes later, your Mom asks, {nuqDaq
loDnI'lI' ghaHtaH?} you might naturally reply, {nughoStaH.}
After all, your mother is asking where he is RIGHT NOW, and
right now, he is in the continuous act of following the path to
you. The focus is on his current state, not his destination.

> By theory #1, if we were talking about a Federation ship while we 
> were cloaked, nughoStaH might imply, "they don't see us and they're going 
> to ram right into us if we don't do something." 

It could also mean that they are still distant enough that
presumptions about whether they will intercept you or not are
not as yet an issue. You are simply saying that the ship is
continuing on a course that would lead to you, if they keep it
up.

> In this same 
> circumstance, nuchollI' might imply, "they seem to have spotted us and 
> are circling for a better look."  

Or, it could mean that you have them in your sights and your
disruptors are about to impede their continuous state. Think of
{-lI'} as a {-choH} in the foreseeable future (within the tense
implied by context, of course).

> Using theory #2, nuchollI' could either 
> imply that they are slowing and we can calculate where they will stop, or 
> that we can calculate where they will be closest and after that, they 
> will be going away instead of coming near.  nughoStaH, OTOH, now becomes 
> meaningless, since if it is coming towards us we can all guess the 
> stopping point.  Theory #1 seems to win this argument.  But theory #2 
> resurfaces when you realize that yIjuntaH can not possibly mean, "take 
> unintentional evasive action!"  What am I missing here.

yIjuntaH basically means, "Keep evading them until I tell you
otherwise!" Anyway, I guess I am a promoter of a third theory.

> Under any circumstance, QonglI' seems better, as I think we can safely 
> assume that they fell asleep intentionally and are expected to wake up in 
> the morning.
> 
> ..
> > SuS HoSqu'mo' maDo'Ha'.
> > 
> > "Because of strong wind, we were unlucky."
> 
> Putting the sentence in this order, shouldn't the -mo' be on the noun.  
> The sentence implies that it was because of the existence of the wind, 
> rather than it's strength, that we were unlucky.

True, but type 5 noun suffixes get transferred to their
modifying adjectivals. This usually means {-Daq} or {-vaD}, but
{-mo'} also fits this description. Go figure.

> janSIy  }}:+D>
> 

charghwI'
-- 

 \___
 o_/ \
 <\__,\
  ">   | Get a grip.
   `   |

Back to archive top level